Opening debate shows Liberals remain low on drama and ideas

In their common defence, with nine Liberal leadership candidates in the mix it was virtually impossible for any among them to generate a frisson of excitement, let alone a telling exchange, let alone a knockout blow. Even the contestants often looked restless. The live audience merely looked sleepy.

But you’d think one or two candidates might have ventured an original or provocative thought, for fun. None did. Ottawa lawyer David Bertschi came closest to something resembling a jab, with two cracks at MP Marc Garneau’s background as an astronaut. Because the joke’s apparent premise – that flying in space makes one a space cadet – was nonsensical, it fell flat.

What remained of the panel discussion (it was a debate in name only) was apple pie, as though the past decade of Grit electoral drubbings were just an unpleasant dream. Indeed it came off like a straight-up re-spooling of the Grit biennial convention in Ottawa a year ago. Justin Trudeau was the only one of the nine who acknowledged the party’s recent policy and electoral failures. But he did so only in an aside, in his closing statement.

Speaking of which, no one laid a glove on the party’s rock star, though he has been and remains the odds-on favourite to become leader in April. This wasn’t due to any particular brilliance on Trudeau’s part. On the contrary his performance was tepid – almost as though he were afraid to make a mistake that might blow his lead. Perhaps, to be charitable, he was hampered by the choppy format. Or perhaps he had other things on his mind.

Related

Either way, Trudeau emerged at the end of two-plus hours more-or-less-intact – because no one really tried to connect. Even Martha Hall-Findlay, who arguably has the most to gain from a frontal assault on the leader, stuck mainly to worthy assertions of familiar Liberal themes. If one had to pick winners on points, Findlay should share first place with Garneau; both outmatched Trudeau, who garbled a few of his answers. Hall-Findlay, who was a plucky newcomer in the 2006 leadership race, is now a seasoned politician, with an engaging and forthright manner. Garneau, too, has clearly been honing his game: Of the nine he was consistently the most passionate and confident. With last night’s outing he can probably be said to have put his reputation for terminal dullness to rest.

But even that is a game of increments: No one really shone, when set against the standard they’ll need to meet if they win the party leadership. Only Garneau, Hall-Findlay and Trudeau on Sunday looked at all capable of propping up a podium between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Opposition leader Tom Mulcair. But even that is a far cry from having the wherewithal to dominate and win.

It has been said, but bears repeating: There are two many candidates in this race, by a measure of maybe four, or five. Retired Canadian Forces officer Karen McCrimmon seems well intentioned. David Bertschi seems stiff and awkward. George Takach, though a better speaker than the other newcomers, appears at times to be preening. (He is a Bay Street lawyer who specialized in brokering tech deals; he is not, as far as I can tell, any kind of tech savant or guru). Deborah Coyne, though clearly thoughtful and informed, has surprisingly weak French. The same goes for B.C. MP Joyce Murray.

Former cabinet minister Martin Cauchon has a sincere manner, but his English is laboured. Even if this late entrant had a shot, the party won’t soon again make the mistake of picking a leader not easily fluent in both official languages. (Jean Chretien mangled the English language; but he was a special case, it has often been noted, in that he mangled French also and made up for all of it with insouciant charm.)

This large and mainly weak field is more than an aggravation, for the three front-runners and for the party. At a time when they should be testing one other, showcasing their wares before a Canadian public increasingly seeking out fresh faces and new voices, all three are lost in the general noise.

But the bigger question is, as always, the lack of new thinking. Trudeau, Garneau and Hall-Findlay have at earlier stages of their campaigns, advanced ideas that break with Liberal orthodoxy. No such intriguing heresies were ventured tonight. Why not? This is a third-place party, facing extinction. If its leading lights can’t be bold now, in the intellectual incubator of a leadership race, when will they ever be?

The party should be swinging for the fences. In Vancouver, we saw grounders and a few bunts. Onward to Feb. 2, in Winnipeg. Viewership for round two, one suspects, will be down.